The New Fire in Fred's Belly

National Review Online ^ | November 19, 2007 | Larry Kudlow

[tioga]

-well he needs to quit dribbling around the sidelines and shoot for a three pointer.

[Rick.Donaldson]

who cares about “the campaign” IF the message is right? The message doesn't matter if it is not being communicated.

The worst thing a political camp can do is to start believing their own propaganda. The second worst mistake is to overestimate the intelligence and discernment of the voters.

So, what you're saying is that a) The message is NOT important b) Political camps shouldn't believe in their OWN message and c) Voters are stupid as rocks.

That about sum it up?

First off, I've worked on several campaigns, as an "insider" for both the major parties in my lifetime. Secondly, I spent 8 years IN the White House and I saw the day-to-day lives of Presidents, First Ladies and was unfortunately sometimes privy to things I didn't want to know.

Since those days, I've even run for office myself once (local office, I lost, I didn't have 'enough money' to 'get the word out' - and I was running for a non-paying, school board position). Actually, I lost simply because some of the people running were 'endorsed' by the NEA here in Colorado, because of the pro-abortion stances... and they were given hundreds of thousands of dollars to make banners, flyers and TV ads. I had 250 dollars in my budget. /shrug

So, when I said before that people shouldn't be as hell bent on the "campaign" as the MESSAGE. I learned something though.

1) The message does get out, regardless of how much money you spend or when you come into the race. (I came in 5th out of 15 candidates in my case, vying for FOUR seats. The first four spent over 200 grand on their campaign - together).

2) People, voters, are NOT stupid in general. Individually, you will find ignorance and apathy scattered throughout the public, but as a general consensus people aren't stupid. Neither should they be treated as if they were stupid.

3) Name Recognition is MORE important than the message sometimes. People who were actually elected to the board were sent BACK, having been there already. I however, beat out several OTHER people WHO HAD NAME recognition, but not the encumbents.

4) You, the candidate, and the people that work for you in the campaign had BETTER BELIEVE in THE MESSAGE they are presenting and the platform upon which they stand, or they will fail and fail miserably.

That you believe people are 'stupid' is telling, and that you are definitely a person who seems to mistrust ALL politicians no matter who they might be. That you think people shouldn't believe their own message is yet another contradiction in your remarks.

I just don't understand how people can make informed decisions if they remain ignorant of the facts in campaigns, and the messages the candidates are giving.

Hillary Clinton has been giving NOTHING by contradictory statements about several issues, including immigration. I can't see anyone winning an election this time around without addressing immigration directly, stopping illegals from entering this country, and shutting down ingress by terrorists into this country. Hillary won't address the subject at all, except to IGNORE it.

Thompson is doing just fine on addressing it, will he do something? I don't know. I hope so. I think he will. I think Ron Paul will not, and neither will the majority of the current candidates.

As I said before, and maintain now, it is WHITEWASH to point out things like "Fred got in too late" or "he doesn't have 'fire in the belly'" etc. This is all a load of nonsense and it's the REAL propaganda being put out, by the OTHER sides.

[PAR35]

So, what you're saying is

No. I'll walk you though it. The key thought is generally at the top. In a paragraph, that would be a topic sentence, it a well written article, it would be called the 'inverted pyramid style. So let's look to see what I started with:

"The message doesn't matter if it is not being communicated."

Now, you have conflated that with the comment that I was discussing, not distinguishing between that on which I commented and the comment I made.

I actually thought that the comment was understandable, but apparently I need to restructure it so that you can understand.

Note that I did NOT say, as you misunderstood it, that the message was not important. What I did say was that the content of the message would have no impact if the message did not reach the voters.

You also missed somewhat on the first sub point, so I'll try to explain it where you can understand. I did not say that politicians shouldn't believe their own message (although they rarely do), but that they shouldn't believe their own propaganda. As an example, see the spin that FReepers put on polls. If the numbers trend against their candidate, they are quick to spin how the polls are flawed to discount them in the voters minds. That's a valid technique, but them must never themselves believe that the polls are no good - they need to realize they need to be doing something differently.

That's just one micro example of the macro issue.

Voters are stupid as rocks.

I can understand, and to an extent agree with that if that is your conclusion. It is, however, somewhat narrower than what I said.

I didn't have 'enough money' to 'get the word out'

Thanks for the example which proves my original point. It really didn't matter what your message was in that race. You weren't able to communicate your message to the voters, primarily for budget reasons.

[Rick.Donaldson]

No Par, you misunderstood, I was being sarcastic when I said I didn’t have enough money to get the word out. I spent two hundred dollars. They spent, each, 160,000 bucks for those four that came in 1, 2, 3 and 4. There were fifteen other people running in the election.

The four that won were all incumbents.

The other people who came in behind me spent MUCH more money than I spent.

I still came in just past the four winners, ahead of the other ten people, in fact CONSIDERABLE past the other ten.

No, I understood exactly what you said, and I quoted you exactly, and I broke it down. You don’t have to construct sentences for me. I know how to read, perhaps you should construct them for yourself the next time.